I'm all for IQ but I think something like a 17-70 range would have been really nice for an F4 "standard" lens to be an alternative to those who have a 24-105 already. I mean, isn't that what the 24-105 was all about to begin with? The standard lens with the most focal lengths. 17-70 would have been great, even for crop cameras! I wouldn't have minded the extra weight and the slow speed but I disagree with overlapping this lens over the 24-105 instead of diversifying the focal range. The 24-105 is already acceptable in the weight department compared to other L lenses... Just my two cents. But, the damage is done already. One thing I did wanted fixed on the 24-105 was the distortion on the wide end, and if they fixed that with the new 24-70 lenses then I can only see more reason to try one out or even buy one after seeing enough good sample shots and good reviews.

I JUST got my 24-105 a few months ago for less than $800 used. If I had known this was coming, i would have waited. The better optical performance and new style IS would have swayed me. But as it is, I will be hanging on to my 24-105. It really is a good lens, despite the rep it gets here on the forums (or at least it did, until people started using it as a reason to pan the new 24-70 F4 .

I was interested in this lens until I took a close look at the MTF charts of it versus the 24-70/2.8L II. Canon made it a more dificult comparison because the vertical scales are a little different between the 4 graphs. At $1500USD, I'd expect the f4 version to be closer to the f2.8 in image quality and that doesn't appear to be the case. Compared to the f2.8L II, image quality falls of near the corners for a full frame sensor. It would probably be a great crop sensor lens though...

+1....alot of people didn't see that at all. I'm glad you catched that one. I coudn't be happier with mine f2.8 II.

Since 5D3 appeared with its surprises (not all pleasant for me),I decided that I will never treat Canon's new products with enthusiasm or pesimism before these being properly tested. I am excited for 0.7x close-up (24-105 is very bad in close-up aplications) and I think I could loose 35mm for near macro capability. The price is in the line of Canon last year products, no suprise here: the new 1k is 1,5k in lenses price. Maybe a new 100-400 at 3.5k will be a bargain next year But in fact even Nikon increased prices at new lenses (see 70-200 f4).

Nice lenses should be displayed like Bling. I would suggest a Black Rapid strap for comfort while you wear it.

LOL. Way ahead of you - I got a special BR strap just for the 600 II.

(Actually, I'm serious! BR has a 'left handed' version of their strap, and for the life of me I couldn't see the utility of it since, right or left handed, you've got to hold the camera in your right hand to press the shutter button, so having it hang on the left side of the body seems illogical to me. But with a heavy supertele, if makes a lot of sense to hang that on the left side, since when you bring it up to shoot you want to lift it by the lens foot, not the camera body, and that means lifting it up with the left hand then grabbing the body with the free right hand. But...I digress...)

I have the 24-105 and it's ok for what it is. Not more not less just ok. And my complaint is not "sharpness' or any of that. I don't like that it's f/4 - though of course I understand why that is. And I don't like IS and I don't like the build quality of it. I can't think of one single reason why I'd want basically that same lens as a 24-70. You couldn't pay me to use it let alone ask me to buy something like this. I wish I had bought the original 24-70 2.8 two years ago.

Wedding photographer here, I have both the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 2.8 Ver II, both are great lenses. I don't understand why they decided to make a 24-70 f/4 at the same price point as the 24-105 f/4. I won't be buying one.

imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability but not i am not pretty sure... let see

I have the 24-105L and the 24-70L version one. Unless tests were to reveal for this lens to have amazing optics, I'm not interested. I will probably buy the 24-70L II in a few years. Or maybe the III with IS